There has been debate about whether at any point courts do in fact have regard to the subjective intentions of the parties.

The original form of originalism was known as intentionalism, or original intent, and entailed applying laws based on the subjective intention of its authors.

Justice Scalia said that any ulterior motives the police might have had for stopping the two were irrelevant because "subjective intentions play no role in ordinary, probable-cause Fourth Amendment analysis."

He stressed the subjective intention as determining, if not the moral character, at least the moral value, of human action.

For a dispute to exist in the present context, there first had to be something more than a subjective intention on the part of the contracting parties which were not the same.

But, where the commission of the actus reus is in the future, a clear subjective intention to cause the actus reus of the full offense must be demonstrated.

But the Court pointed out that this reasoning ignores the focus of the Fourth Amendment on what a reasonable person would believe, not the subjective intentions of the officers.

There is a paradox, however, in that the subjective intentions of the parties must be established with reference to certain objective factors, the most obvious being the words printed on the contract.

If there is an express selection, this choice will be respected so long as it is made bona fide, i.e. the subjective intention prevails unless the purpose is to:

Semble, it is a mixed question of fact and law, to be determined objectively, the subjective intention being a consideration.